69 yr old homeowner opened fire during no-knock police raid on his home

The articles and the quoted parts contradict each other. So no, I don't know.

And actually the witness does have equally measure to lie. Maybe he hates the police?

The police themselves could have a guilty conscious. There's a theory, forget the name, but basically any cruel and evil act done by a gang of people
will always have one person admit to the wrongs out of a guilty conscious, simply by statistical probability that one person in a large group will
have doubts in any given situation.

Now I've not seen any reason to believe one way or the other, but if the people involved do not have at least one guilty conscious coming out, I've
more reason to believe the police than a bunch of locals.

Simply put, no gang is ever perfect. There is always the weakest link, the one that breaks any oath about any given situation. It's simply the human
factor.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
So, your idea of living in a civilized society involves committing crimes

No. No "crimes" are committed in defending one's self and one's family from intruders. That would be a basic human right.

and firing upon people who you have no reason to believe are any OTHER than the police

I have EVERY reason to believe that ANYONE kicking my door in is up to no good and has violent intent, demonstrated by their violent activity. A badge
is irrelevant. Violent entry WILL be met with deadly force. Period.

but the police are uncivilized when they don't knock and announce for their own safety and to prevent loss of evidence of said crimes, despite it not
being a right guaranteed to you by the Fourth Amendment?

Precisely. Civilized folks DO NOT go around kicking doors in. As a matter of fact, there are laws against that sort of activity, and cops are not
above the law. Knocking on that door is far more a guarantee of their safety than trying to kick it in.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees me the right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Kicking my door in is not a reasonable action.

The Second amendment guarantees me the right and means to enforce my other rights.

A home invasion is not a home invasion when there is a badge behind it and a properly executed search warrant. Because, at that point, the Court has
given the police officers the right to enter and look through your effects, at least to the point of locating whatever evidence they are looking for.
If you think its reasonable to fire upon police officers when you see them break down your door, then you have to understand that its reasonable for
them to fire back at you and put you in a body bag. At that point, there should be no complaints by you that you had your rights deprived.

No court can authorize a violent home entry. I've seen a few search warrants, and I have yet to see one that authorizes violence proactively. Violence
is authorized as a response, not the opening gambit.

A home invasion IS a home invasion. Everything after that in your sentence is an excuse, an attempt to justify irrational and violent action by
government agents upon the citizenry. Period.

It's absolutely reasonable to meet violence with violence. Therefore, it is absolutely reasonable to lay down the lead in the beaten zone of the
doorway immediately upon an attempt at violent entry. You are, at that very instant, under attack, and it's reasonable to respond accordingly.

It is understood that the police, just as any other invading criminal, will most certainly fire back. Yes, it's likely that I'll go into a body bag,
and I'm at peace with that. That is preferable to living under totalitarianism. 5 dollars will get you 20, however, that I won't be the only one
getting bagged up.

If you have EVER seen a dead man complain that his rights have been violated, you've been watching too much John Edwards, or whatever that
spook-talker's name is.

The funny part is you call on the Fourth Amendment here stating that the knock and announce rule is a right, because we are civilized. Yet you
conveniently ignore the fact that there is NOTHING in the Fourth Amendment providing for knock and announce. So, there is nothing there that
guarantees you that right. The only thing it says is that officers must have probable cause (which they did) and the warrant must be particularized in
the place to be searched (it was) and the things to be seized (it was). In sum, his ENTIRE rights were met.

Exactly what part of "reasonable" escapes your grasp? Nope, I've not ignored anything at all.

Pity he didn't have a right to life, or a trial, isn't it? Oh, wait...

And just to be clear, you think you have a right to open fire upon police officers if they kick in your door? Because this is what you are arguing
here.

Just to be clear, YES. That is exactly what I am arguing, and that is exactly what will happen in the event of violent action initiated against me
when I have not demonstrated violent action against the perpetrators of it. A badge means nothing at all to me. I have two you can have if you want
them.

Wanna hear a funny joke we used to tell amongst ourselves in training?

Q: What's the difference between a cop and a criminal?

A: The Badge.

I don't think you are being honest with yourself here, or throughout the entire post. I HIGHLY doubt that you would think it was a good idea to
start firing a gun if you saw what appeared to be a whole bunch of police officers kick down your door. And if you would, I sincerely hope that you
never have that happen to you.

Then you must not know me very well. There's not a cop in this county or the neighboring one that would place a bet on your side of that ledger. I've
been here, between these two counties and one to the north, for the last 20 years or so, and have dealt extensively with them, both in a working
relationship and out in general. They KNOW better. They treat me with respect, I treat them with respect, and for the most part we get along famously.
The only one I've EVER had trouble with was a rookie, and he learned in short order what does and doesn't fly, even though I went along to the station
peacefully in that case. His level of arrogance and abuse didn't quite rise to the level of violent action. He was reprimanded by both his superiors
AND the court.

As far as your probable cause statement, I am not sure what you are basing this off of. A judge is making the determination not the police. At the
very least they had an informant who had established themselves in the past, by informing on other people, as a reliable and accurate informant. At
the most, they had a whole plethora of evidence.

I'm basing it on warrants I've seen. Many have entirely ignored the Rule of Particularity, and many were not signed by a judge, but rather a
magistrate. MANY have been "rubber stamp" signatures, where the warrant was not even read before it was signed off on. Believe it or not, I have even
seen blank warrants signed, to be filled out as needed.

I don't know where you come by your information on CI's but they are notoriously unreliable. If you try to base a warrant on the word of just one, you
may be riding for a hard fall. You know how they get that status, and how they get their "information" I presume, right?

I'd have to see that warrant, possibly BEFORE execution, to be convinced they had a "whole plethora of evidence", because they damn sure didn't find
much evidence AFTER execution.

And yes, I mean "execution" - in more than one sense.

Again, I hope you actually pause, and detach yourself from the hatred you have for Cops,

I don't have a hatred for cops at all. Quite the contrary. I have no respect for ROGUE cops, however. they give the rest a bad name.

and sit here and honestly review this case and ask: what kind of person would open fire on people that were, for all he knew, police officers?

The kind who brooks no violent action willingly against his person. The badges don't matter. If they initiated the violence, and by all accounts they
did, the response was appropriate.

You act as if the police started this incident, but you forget that the guy was the first one to start shooting.

By all accounts, they did. they initiated it by springing a sneak attack upon an unsuspecting citizen, In war, that's called an "ambush", and in the
old westerns, they called it "bushwhacking". It's all the same - an armed surprise sneak attack, and it is violence visited on another, initiated by
those springing the sneak attack.

OF COURSE he shot first! I learned a long time ago that if you waited for the other guy to shoot you first in a violent confrontation, you're just
trying to catch bullets. Guys who DIDN'T learn that aren't with us any more. This is a fight for your life, not a Marquis of Queensbury parlor game!
It's not an old western showdown at high noon, where the guy in the white hat chivalrously gives the guy in the black hat the first go. That's MOVIES,
friend!

And what would happen in 99% of the cases if the cops waited to knock and announce (and most likely this case too as it happened without knocking and
announcing)? The drug dealers would arm themselves and start opening fire ANYWAY. Despite the "civility" of the officers, there would be FAR
more deaths. You, and other people on this particular thread, are not being rational with your line of thinking here.

Son, I'm not about to live my life in fear of the authorities overstepping their bounds or just accept violence visited upon me just because some
crack dealer down the street might be unpleasant to be around. That's him, not me, and it's just plain wrong to apply the same broad brush to the
entire world. Some of the most dangerous people I've ever met were only dangerous when they were wronged, and the most satisfactory solution was not
to wrong them. I've seen some of the scariest people you'll ever meet marched away docilely when they knew they were caught, and they were in the
wrong. If YOU, on the other hand, were in the wrong against them, all bets were off, and you were fair game.

Perhaps it's just a matter of what one chooses to fear, and how he reacts to that. If cops fear everyone, they will behave exactly as you have stated,
and some of them will die for it. Cops around here aren't like that for the most part. They're prudent, but not fearful of every little thing that
goes bump in the night.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
So, your idea of living in a civilized society involves committing crimes

No. No "crimes" are committed in defending one's self and one's family from intruders. That would be a basic human right.

You aren't defending your home when someone has a valid search warrant and is judicially authorized to enter your house and look.

and firing upon people who you have no reason to believe are any OTHER than the police

I have EVERY reason to believe that ANYONE kicking my door in is up to no good and has violent intent, demonstrated by their violent activity. A badge
is irrelevant. Violent entry WILL be met with deadly force. Period.

This is not a reasonable belief. The officer has been authorized by a judicial officer to execute a warrant. In some circumstances knocking and
announcing would be far more deadly or violent than busting down a door. And if you decide, if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in said
circumstance, that you have the "right" to fire upon the officers at this point, you will be, and I say justifiably, killed. They have the right to
operate within the law, just as you do. By engaging in an activity that puts you outside the law, that puts you at a place where a search warrant can
be executed, you have given up your rights to not have someone kick down your door. You don't get to run around screaming I'm protected by the law --
I have rights when you don't even show a modicum of respect for the law. (I am saying you referring to someone who is engaging in the sort of criminal
activity that would allow an officer to kick in the door).

but the police are uncivilized when they don't knock and announce for their own safety and to prevent loss of evidence of said crimes, despite it not
being a right guaranteed to you by the Fourth Amendment?

Precisely. Civilized folks DO NOT go around kicking doors in. As a matter of fact, there are laws against that sort of activity, and cops are not
above the law. Knocking on that door is far more a guarantee of their safety than trying to kick it in.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees me the right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Kicking my door in is not a reasonable action.

Your half-right. The Fourth Amendment guarantees you the right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures UNLESS the officers have probable cause to support a warrant. At that point, you no longer have the right to be secure in your
person, house, papers, and effects. The Fourth Amendment was created to prevent the general warrants that would issue during colonial times. This is
where the British soldiers would enter your house for whatever reason and search for ANYTHING illegal. This is what the Fourth Amendment is designed
to protect against. It is NOT designed to protect against a search warrant. At the issuance of the search warrant you lose those rights. It's
that simple.

The Second amendment guarantees me the right and means to enforce my other rights.

This is laughable and misguided. The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right and means to enforce your other rights. The Second Amendment doesn't
give you the right to enforce ANY right. Instead, it gives you the right to bear arms for self defense; and arguably the right to establish a
militia. Pulling a gun on a police officer just because they have a gun is not self defense. An officer acting pursuant to a valid court order has the
right to restrain you. You do not have the right to fight back at this point. If you do resist arrest, force can be applied. If you go far enough
beyond resisting an officer can kill you.

But lets just say the Second Amendment was established to give you the right to enforce your other rights. The Fourth Amendment, right to be secure in
your house would certainly be one of those rights. But, you LOSE that right once a Search Warrant has been issued. Thus, you can no longer enforce
that right because you've lost the right to be secure in your house! So this argument is inapplicable!

A home invasion is not a home invasion when there is a badge behind it and a properly executed search warrant. Because, at that point, the Court has
given the police officers the right to enter and look through your effects, at least to the point of locating whatever evidence they are looking for.
If you think its reasonable to fire upon police officers when you see them break down your door, then you have to understand that its reasonable for
them to fire back at you and put you in a body bag. At that point, there should be no complaints by you that you had your rights deprived.

No court can authorize a violent home entry. I've seen a few search warrants, and I have yet to see one that authorizes violence proactively. Violence
is authorized as a response, not the opening gambit.

A home invasion IS a home invasion. Everything after that in your sentence is an excuse, an attempt to justify irrational and violent action by
government agents upon the citizenry. Period.

It's absolutely reasonable to meet violence with violence. Therefore, it is absolutely reasonable to lay down the lead in the beaten zone of the
doorway immediately upon an attempt at violent entry. You are, at that very instant, under attack, and it's reasonable to respond
accordingly.

First off, the man was not meeting violence with violence. Rather the police were meeting violence with violence. As I've explained, you only have the
right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in your home if there is no probable cause for the police to come into your home. If there
is, too bad. You do not have the right to go shooting your weapon.

It is understood that the police, just as any other invading criminal, will most certainly fire back. Yes, it's likely that I'll go into a body bag,
and I'm at peace with that. That is preferable to living under totalitarianism. 5 dollars will get you 20, however, that I won't be the only one
getting bagged up.

If you have EVER seen a dead man complain that his rights have been violated, you've been watching too much John Edwards, or whatever that
spook-talker's name is.

Totalitarianism? It's called living under the 4th Amendment. The definition hasn't changed. This aspect of it is clear on its face. You are secure in
your person or house UNLESS the cops have probable cause supported by a warrant. At that point, you lose that right. You just have a hatred for cops
and you are letting it blind you to the objective truth.

The funny part is you call on the Fourth Amendment here stating that the knock and announce rule is a right, because we are civilized. Yet you
conveniently ignore the fact that there is NOTHING in the Fourth Amendment providing for knock and announce. So, there is nothing there that
guarantees you that right. The only thing it says is that officers must have probable cause (which they did) and the warrant must be particularized in
the place to be searched (it was) and the things to be seized (it was). In sum, his ENTIRE rights were met.

Exactly what part of "reasonable" escapes your grasp? Nope, I've not ignored anything at all.

Pity he didn't have a right to life, or a trial, isn't it? Oh, wait...

You lose your right to trial when you force police officers into a situation where they are required to shoot you. Again, he lost his right to be
secure in his house for that moment. Any action by him was unreasonable.

And just to be clear, you think you have a right to open fire upon police officers if they kick in your door? Because this is what you are arguing
here.

Just to be clear, YES. That is exactly what I am arguing, and that is exactly what will happen in the event of violent action initiated against me
when I have not demonstrated violent action against the perpetrators of it. A badge means nothing at all to me. I have two you can have if you want
them.

Wanna hear a funny joke we used to tell amongst ourselves in training?

Q: What's the difference between a cop and a criminal?

A: The Badge.

Okay, knowing that you lose your right to be secure in your property upon a properly executed search warrant how do you justify the right to protect
your property at that point, despite losing it?

I don't think you are being honest with yourself here, or throughout the entire post. I HIGHLY doubt that you would think it was a good idea to
start firing a gun if you saw what appeared to be a whole bunch of police officers kick down your door. And if you would, I sincerely hope that you
never have that happen to you.

Then you must not know me very well. There's not a cop in this county or the neighboring one that would place a bet on your side of that ledger. I've
been here, between these two counties and one to the north, for the last 20 years or so, and have dealt extensively with them, both in a working
relationship and out in general. They KNOW better. They treat me with respect, I treat them with respect, and for the most part we get along famously.
The only one I've EVER had trouble with was a rookie, and he learned in short order what does and doesn't fly, even though I went along to the station
peacefully in that case. His level of arrogance and abuse didn't quite rise to the level of violent action. He was reprimanded by both his superiors
AND the court.

Again, you do not have the right to be secure in your property once a valid search warrant is issued. Thus, even though you think have the right to
open fire, you were never given that right. The framers of the Constitution never even contemplated that right existing.

As far as your probable cause statement, I am not sure what you are basing this off of. A judge is making the determination not the police. At the
very least they had an informant who had established themselves in the past, by informing on other people, as a reliable and accurate informant. At
the most, they had a whole plethora of evidence.

I'm basing it on warrants I've seen. Many have entirely ignored the Rule of Particularity, and many were not signed by a judge, but rather a
magistrate. MANY have been "rubber stamp" signatures, where the warrant was not even read before it was signed off on. Believe it or not, I have even
seen blank warrants signed, to be filled out as needed.

I don't know where you come by your information on CI's but they are notoriously unreliable. If you try to base a warrant on the word of just one, you
may be riding for a hard fall. You know how they get that status, and how they get their "information" I presume, right?

I'd have to see that warrant, possibly BEFORE execution, to be convinced they had a "whole plethora of evidence", because they damn sure didn't find
much evidence AFTER execution.

And yes, I mean "execution" - in more than one sense.

Well then I can tell you that the warrants that issued had the entirety of their evidence excluded at trial, including the fruits that the evidence
later produced, or the defense attorneys where you live are beyond pitiful. Either that, or you're making this up.

And I was just stating the law regarding CI's and what would be necessary to maintain probable cause to get a warrant based on a CI's tip. As you said
they are notoriously unreliable, thus an officer is going to have to get even MORE evidence to establish probable cause.

And you want more probable cause: He OPEN FIRED ON POLICE OFFICERS!!!! He didn't have the right to do that, he lost his right to be secure in
persons and house when the search warrant issued! Which, even under your second amendment enforcement argument means that he lost the right to enforce
his right to be secure in his house!

Again, I hope you actually pause, and detach yourself from the hatred you have for Cops,

I don't have a hatred for cops at all. Quite the contrary. I have no respect for ROGUE cops, however. they give the rest a bad name.

Last I checked following a valid search warrant does not make a cop a rouge cop. Instead, it makes them a law abidding Cop.

and sit here and honestly review this case and ask: what kind of person would open fire on people that were, for all he knew, police officers?

The kind who brooks no violent action willingly against his person. The badges don't matter. If they initiated the violence, and by all accounts they
did, the response was appropriate.

Their was no violence issued. Again, the man lost his right to be secure in house by the issuance of a valid warrant. The man then shot at the
officers "enforcing" a right that no longer belonged to him and that he could not regain until AFTER the search pursuant to the search warrant had
ended.

You act as if the police started this incident, but you forget that the guy was the first one to start shooting.

By all accounts, they did. they initiated it by springing a sneak attack upon an unsuspecting citizen, In war, that's called an "ambush", and in the
old westerns, they called it "bushwhacking". It's all the same - an armed surprise sneak attack, and it is violence visited on another, initiated by
those springing the sneak attack.

Sneak attack? Was this man unaware that the Fourth Amendment gives the officers the right to enter one's house when they have a warrant? I highly
doubt that. This man opened fire when he did not have the right to open fire, and he lost, and rightfully so.

OF COURSE he shot first! I learned a long time ago that if you waited for the other guy to shoot you first in a violent confrontation, you're just
trying to catch bullets. Guys who DIDN'T learn that aren't with us any more. This is a fight for your life, not a Marquis of Queensbury parlor game!
It's not an old western showdown at high noon, where the guy in the white hat chivalrously gives the guy in the black hat the first go. That's MOVIES,
friend!

There was nothing to indicate that this was a violent confrontation until the man initiated the shooting. The cops were acting pursuant to a warrant,
again, which stripped this man of his rights to be secure from searches in his house.

And what would happen in 99% of the cases if the cops waited to knock and announce (and most likely this case too as it happened without knocking and
announcing)? The drug dealers would arm themselves and start opening fire ANYWAY. Despite the "civility" of the officers, there would be FAR
more deaths. You, and other people on this particular thread, are not being rational with your line of thinking here.

Son, I'm not about to live my life in fear of the authorities overstepping their bounds or just accept violence visited upon me just because some
crack dealer down the street might be unpleasant to be around. That's him, not me, and it's just plain wrong to apply the same broad brush to the
entire world. Some of the most dangerous people I've ever met were only dangerous when they were wronged, and the most satisfactory solution was not
to wrong them. I've seen some of the scariest people you'll ever meet marched away docilely when they knew they were caught, and they were in the
wrong. If YOU, on the other hand, were in the wrong against them, all bets were off, and you were fair game.

It's not the same broad brush approach. These are warrants issued for crimes related to dealing drugs. This sort of action does not happen except for
limited circumstances where it is incredibly likely that violence would occur or evidence would be destroyed. All other circumstances the police must
knock and announce. Obviously, we do not want to encourage gun fights in a neighborhood, so allowing officers to bust in the door in a limited number
of situations and act before the other side can become responsive is necessary. It's situations like these that you do not want to tip someone off.

Perhaps it's just a matter of what one chooses to fear, and how he reacts to that. If cops fear everyone, they will behave exactly as you have stated,
and some of them will die for it. Cops around here aren't like that for the most part. They're prudent, but not fearful of every little thing that
goes bump in the night.

That makes all the difference, and a lot of us are damned glad of it.

edit on 2011/7/7 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

It's not about fearing everyone. It's about a certain subset of crimes that are extraordinarily dangerous to deal with. They must knock and announce
if they suspect you of committing a burglary (I'm differentiating from a robbery). However, that is not the case for drug situations, where the people
can flush drugs down the drain, and usually are heavily armed. In that case, it is better that the officers get a jump on the criminals so as to avoid
situations where there is a gun fight. Even in the case at hand, this guy was heavily armed and ready to attack the police. And common sense will tell
us that he wasn't defending this right that you claim he was. He was clearly engaged in illegal activity. I understand they found nothing, but it
doesn't mean there was nothing. And again, even if you can use the Second Amendment to enforce your other rights, you lose your right to be secure in
your house once probable cause and a search warrant issue. Thus, you cannot open fire on police officers, however they may enter, when they have
probable cause. There is nothing in the Fourth Amendment which limits the way police officers may enter your home.

I don't think you are being honest with yourself here, or throughout the entire post. I HIGHLY doubt that you would think it was a good idea
to start firing a gun if you saw what appeared to be a whole bunch of police officers kick down your door. And if you would, I sincerely hope that you
never have that happen to you.

As far as your probable cause statement, I am not sure what you are basing this off of. A judge is making the determination not the police. At the
very least they had an informant who had established themselves in the past, by informing on other people, as a reliable and accurate informant. At
the most, they had a whole plethora of evidence.

Again, I hope you actually pause, and detach yourself from the hatred you have for Cops, and sit here and honestly review this case and ask: what kind
of person would open fire on people that were, for all he knew, police officers? You act as if the police started this incident, but you forget that
the guy was the first one to start shooting.

And what would happen in 99% of the cases if the cops waited to knock and announce (and most likely this case too as it happened without knocking and
announcing)? The drug dealers would arm themselves and start opening fire ANYWAY. Despite the "civility" of the officers, there would be FAR
more deaths. You, and other people on this particular thread, are not being rational with your line of thinking here.

The problem stems from law enforcement's resort to violence in the first instance, as their initial approach to the perceived problem.

Why is that necessary? They aren't the military whose solution to everything is to administer lethal force.

If you have a house that is known without a doubt to be occupied by violent criminals who have committed and are in the process of committing felonies
(i.e. possession of illegal drugs), why risk anyone's life. Lay siege to it. Cut off the water, electricity, and gas. Keep them contained for a
week. They will either dehydrate, starve, or surrender. It isn't necessary to go Rambo as your first choice. That's just what the steroid,
testosterone, and adrenaline pumped-up macho boys like to do while dressed up in their kevlar armor and stylish bullet proof helmets.

The case at issue on this thread did not call for a violent approach at all. Pull your head out from between your legs for once. Enjoy the sunshine.
Breathe the fresh air. It's a much better place to be.

You can keep coming up with inapplicable weak inane excuses and examples to justify what the SWAT freaks did in this case. It doesn't work. They
murdered a man in his own home without justification. That they had a warrant doesn't erase their accountability and culpability any more than the
Nazis' excuse that they were just following orders worked for them.

This crap has to stop.

edit on 7/7/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification

First off, lets agree that the framers never gave us an unlimited right to be secure in our person or home. That right is limited by an exception of
if a valid warrant issues the police officers can enter.

Now, before we get into that, your argument is that we should have the police officers, despite following the Constitutional mandate as contemplated
by the framers, contact local electric and utility suppliers spend their time, and our tax dollars. Meanwhile, you want the police officers to sit
outside his house waiting for him to come out, even if it takes a few days? What about other crimes? "I'm sorry I cannot respond to the domestic
battery case, I'm waiting for a guy to eventually come out of his house. I know the woman may be killed by her husband, but I've gotta wait here!"
- Wow. And you think my arguments are inane? LOL.

The cops did not take a violent approach. The man took the violent approach. The police officers acted according to the law. The police officers did
exactly what the Fourth Amendment allows them to do. At that point, the man no longer had the right to defend his home because he no longer had the
right to be secure in his home because a valid warrant had issued. He opened fire when he wasn't legally allowed to. He initiated the violence, not
the police. Surely, the police have the right to defend their person when they are acting pursuant to the law, no?

The cops did not take a violent approach. The man took the violent approach. * * * He initiated the violence, not the police. Surely, the police have
the right to defend their person when they are acting pursuant to the law, no?

The more you post on this thread the more transparent you become.

Smashing the door to someone's home so violently that the door frame splinters is not a violent approach? Was the guy holding the door shut? No!
Did he prop furniture against the door to keep them from coming in? No! Did they ask for permission to enter? No! Did they tell him they have a
warrant based on what some numbskull informant c.i. had accused him of doing? No! Did they give him an opportunity to consider the accusation and
respond to it? No! Did they give him an opportunity to get dressed, wash up a little, and come out peacefuly for a friendly ride down to the police
station? No!

What was their first act on the scene? Violent entry!

The cops initiated the violence. There is no question whatsoever on that point!

The homeowner reacted to the cops' violent assault upon his home.

They killed him as a result of their violent assault upon his home.

It's really just that simple.

The public must express their outrage at this kind of police misconduct or it will just continue getting worse.

Your attitude, sir (or ma'am), is a huge part of the problem and just encourages them to continue doing the same to more and more citizens.

LOL. You're right. Cops should wait outside of someone's house for days. Cut of their power, their water, waste valuable resources so that someone
eventually comes outside, and we don't offend their notions of the home, because it is a sanctuary. You kick in a door and you are violent. What a
joke. Bottom line: in order for society to work you need certain rules in place. My transparency isn't some blind hatred for the police where
everything they do is wrong. But it doesn't matter, no matter how much evidence I provide that your line of thinking is crazy the more you
believe it. So, really, this is a discussion for only those who wrongly believe that these cops acted inappropriately.

You aren't defending your home when someone has a valid search warrant and is judicially authorized to enter your house and look.

If that warrant is served via a violent ambush, you bet I AM! In the end, though, nit-picking the niceties of legal definitions and grand flowery
words isn't going to make a shred of difference to those involved, myself included. The only thing that will matter at that point is the reality right
there on the ground, and yes, I'm perfectly willing to go there.

and firing upon people who you have no reason to believe are any OTHER than the police

I have EVERY reason to believe that ANYONE kicking my door in is up to no good and has violent intent, demonstrated by their violent activity. A badge
is irrelevant. Violent entry WILL be met with deadly force. Period.

This is not a reasonable belief. The officer has been authorized by a judicial officer to execute a warrant. In some circumstances knocking and
announcing would be far more deadly or violent than busting down a door. And if you decide, if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in said
circumstance, that you have the "right" to fire upon the officers at this point, you will be, and I say justifiably, killed. They have the right to
operate within the law, just as you do. By engaging in an activity that puts you outside the law, that puts you at a place where a search warrant can
be executed, you have given up your rights to not have someone kick down your door. You don't get to run around screaming I'm protected by the law --
I have rights when you don't even show a modicum of respect for the law. (I am saying you referring to someone who is engaging in the sort of criminal
activity that would allow an officer to kick in the door).

I reckon you must have never engaged in a firefight of any sort. When warlike things start flying, you don't invite whomever is throwing them at you
in for a nice cup of tea... you throw it right back, and just as heavily as you can manage. Yes, I without a doubt I would be killed in the end, and
that makes not the slightest difference to me. I won't back down and lick their boots over a little thing like dying. There are worse things than
death.

Whether my death is deemed "justifiable" by some minion of the State somewhere will make not even the slightest bit of difference to me at that point.
I'll be dead, and not really giving a damn what anyone thinks then.

You seem to be having a terrible time keeping the difference between "rights" and "laws" straight, You appear to be using the terms interchangeably,
or as if one springs from the other. They do not.

"Rights" are not issued by the state, nor authorized by it, but "laws" are. Rights just are, independent of government, and every person on the planet
has them. Rights can not be "given up" or "taken away", they can only suffer from a failure to exercise the rights you have.

I'll clue you in on a little something here - NO illegal activity has to take place for such a raid to be executed. A suggestion that illegal activity
MAY be taking place appears to be enough these days, and that can be had for a price from any little CI running the streets, or for free from someone
who gets sufficiently mad at one. That's all it takes, and sometimes even less than that. There have been occasions when a simple mistake in address
or transposed number have been quite sufficient.

A better idea is simply not to go around assaulting folks. Some of us are bound to take exception to that sort of affront.

Your half-right. The Fourth Amendment guarantees you the right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures UNLESS the officers have probable cause to support a warrant. At that point, you no longer have the right to be secure in your
person, house, papers, and effects. The Fourth Amendment was created to prevent the general warrants that would issue during colonial times. This is
where the British soldiers would enter your house for whatever reason and search for ANYTHING illegal. This is what the Fourth Amendment is designed
to protect against. It is NOT designed to protect against a search warrant. At the issuance of the search warrant you lose those rights. It's
that simple.

Again, rights CAN NOT be lost, stolen, transferred, given up, or taken away. They can only suffer from failure to exercise them. I missed the word
"unless" in the Fourth, but I distinctly saw the word "reasonable". Initiating war on your own citizens is NOT reasonable. I'm not contending that all
search warrants are invalid, I'm contending that unreasonable service of same IS.

The Second amendment guarantees me the right and means to enforce my other rights.

This is laughable and misguided. The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right and means to enforce your other rights.

I didn't say it GIVES me that right, I said it GUARANTEES that right.

The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to enforce ANY right.

Of course it does. That would be the entire purpose for bearing arms.

Instead, it gives you the right to bear arms for self defense; and arguably the right to establish a militia. Pulling a gun on a police officer just
because they have a gun is not self defense.

No, it's not. Every officer I see carries a gun, and somehow I've managed so far not to pull a gun on any of them. I can't recall where I said it
would be a good idea to pull a gun on an officer just because he has one, too, but you might refresh my memory and point that place out to me.

Now, if he initiates an attack on me with that gun, that's a different story. be careful there - I DID say "initiates", which heading an unprovoked
ambush would fall under. Defending himself if I were dumb enough to initiate an attack on HIM does NOT fall under that heading. You may not know this,
but that's what a police officers gun is for - defending himself against attack. It is NOT for going out and terrorizing the citizenry, proactively
attacking THEM.

An officer acting pursuant to a valid court order has the right to restrain you. You do not have the right to fight back at this point. If you do
resist arrest, force can be applied. If you go far enough beyond resisting an officer can kill you.

Yup. That's why I let the rookie take me to the hoosegow (charges were thrown out of court, and the rookie was reprimanded - twice - over it). There
is a WORLD of difference between "restraint" and "assault" Had he assaulted me, it would have turned out much differently.

But lets just say the Second Amendment was established to give you the right to enforce your other rights. The Fourth Amendment, right to be secure in
your house would certainly be one of those rights. But, you LOSE that right once a Search Warrant has been issued. Thus, you can no longer enforce
that right because you've lost the right to be secure in your house! So this argument is inapplicable!

Not necessarily. There is a list of particularities there that must be observed. One of them is that the warrant must be served. UNTIL that warrant is
served upon me, then all other rights are in full force. Therefore, it would be a damn good idea to stand outside and wait, so that the warrant can be
served. Kicking in my door BEFORE that service, or even trying to lay hands on me, is a sure recipe for trouble. The warrant doesn't take effect at
issue by the judge or magistrate, it takes effect upon service.

First off, the man was not meeting violence with violence. Rather the police were meeting violence with violence.

Wrong. Raids are, by definition, violence visited. Just as I can't go into a bar, start a bar fight, then claim self defense for killing my opponent,
they can not legitimately claim they were just defending themselves from that old man when THEY started the violence.

As I've explained, you only have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in your home if there is no probable cause for the
police to come into your home. If there is, too bad. You do not have the right to go shooting your weapon.

You ALWAYS have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure. ALWAYS. Re-read the Fourth. probably cause doe not nullify the Fourth
Amendment, it's one of the requirements for issue of a warrant for a REASONABLE search and seizure.

Totalitarianism? It's called living under the 4th Amendment. The definition hasn't changed. This aspect of it is clear on its face. You are secure in
your person or house UNLESS the cops have probable cause supported by a warrant. At that point, you lose that right. You just have a hatred for cops
and you are letting it blind you to the objective truth.

Yup, totalitarianism. The 4th Amendment in NO WAY authorizes unreasonable search and seizure. It actually sets the ground rules. Ignoring that, and
proceeding right along with an unreasonable search pretty much defines Totalitarianism, doesn't it?

Once again, rights are not issued by The State, and therefore cannot be revoked by it. You just have a fear of freedom, and are letting it blind you
to the objective truth.

You lose your right to trial when you force police officers into a situation where they are required to shoot you. Again, he lost his right to be
secure in his house for that moment. Any action by him was unreasonable.

Again, THEY did the forcing by initiating the violence. had they not attempted an unannounced entry, the old man would not have been put in a position
where he was forced to defend himself. I haven't read anywhere that the warrant was already served, so he hadn't "lost any rights" at all.

Okay, knowing that you lose your right to be secure in your property upon a properly executed search warrant how do you justify the right to protect
your property at that point, despite losing it?

It hasn't been "executed" until it has been served. Up to that point, defense is entirely justifiable. AGAIN, no rights are "lost".

That was told among officer trainees and trainers, who were all experienced officers. Yup, I have a slant, coming from that background.

Again, you do not have the right to be secure in your property once a valid search warrant is issued.

Again, issue doesn't matter, service does.

Thus, even though you think have the right to open fire, you were never given that right. The framers of the Constitution never even contemplated that
right existing.

You may be catching on now. No, I was NEVER "given" that right. it came right along with birth. I ALWAYS have the right to defend myself. ALWAYS. NO
rights are ever "given", "issued", or "authorized" by the State or any legal machinations.

Well then I can tell you that the warrants that issued had the entirety of their evidence excluded at trial, including the fruits that the evidence
later produced, or the defense attorneys where you live are beyond pitiful. Either that, or you're making this up.

Your working on theory there. Facts on the ground get a good deal murkier. In at least one of those cases, the accused did 4 years or so in the
federal pen over what I still believe to have been trumped up charges coming from a guy who evidently had a beef with him, and made them up on the
fly. that warrant was one of the murkiest I've ever seen, other than the signed blanks handed out for emergencies. Completely ignored the rules of
particularity. It was worded far too nebulously, and some things were seized during the course of the search that were neither illegal nor specified
on the warrant.

Happens every day, and not just here.

And I was just stating the law regarding CI's and what would be necessary to maintain probable cause to get a warrant based on a CI's tip. As you said
they are notoriously unreliable, thus an officer is going to have to get even MORE evidence to establish probable cause.

The laws are "theory", and practice often "bends" them. Have you heard what other probable cause the Hampton police had beyond the CI's word? I
haven't.

And you want more probable cause: He OPEN FIRED ON POLICE OFFICERS!!!! He didn't have the right to do that, he lost his right to be secure in
persons and house when the search warrant issued! Which, even under your second amendment enforcement argument means that he lost the right to enforce
his right to be secure in his house!

Nope, not at issue, rather at service, which never happened, since they killed him first. I'm not going to keep going around in circles over that,
though.

Last I checked following a valid search warrant does not make a cop a rouge cop. Instead, it makes them a law abidding Cop.

Search warrant is not valid until served. Shooting a guy a few times THEN pinning it to his chest doesn't really qualify as service, Dirty Harry
movies notwithstanding.

Their was no violence issued. Again, the man lost his right to be secure in house by the issuance of a valid warrant. The man then shot at the
officers "enforcing" a right that no longer belonged to him and that he could not regain until AFTER the search pursuant to the search warrant had
ended.

Again, the violence began the instant they broke the plain of his curtelage with violent intent. They initiated it by that action. Kicking a door in
is a violent act - and it can get pretty loud and distracting, too!

Sneak attack? Was this man unaware that the Fourth Amendment gives the officers the right to enter one's house when they have a warrant? I highly
doubt that.

He didn't have any warrant, nor had he been properly served one. In light of that, how does the above even begin to take effect? Yup, a sneak
attack,

This man opened fire when he did not have the right to open fire, and he lost, and rightfully so.

He had every right to defend himself! He at least died on his feet defending his rights, which it appears that more and more Americans are absolutely
unwilling to do.

There was nothing to indicate that this was a violent confrontation until the man initiated the shooting. The cops were acting pursuant to a warrant,
again, which stripped this man of his rights to be secure from searches in his house.

Can I come over and kick your door in then? You've just said that it wouldn't be a violent act, and I need the practice. Would Saturday be good for
you? Once again (and I seem to be losing a lot of breath saying this) NO court or piece of paper can "strip" you of your rights. NONE.

It's not the same broad brush approach. These are warrants issued for crimes related to dealing drugs. This sort of action does not happen except for
limited circumstances where it is incredibly likely that violence would occur or evidence would be destroyed. All other circumstances the police must
knock and announce. Obviously, we do not want to encourage gun fights in a neighborhood, so allowing officers to bust in the door in a limited number
of situations and act before the other side can become responsive is necessary. It's situations like these that you do not want to tip someone off.

Yeah, I know. Those 69 year old guys are FAST, and they're strong and mean, too! I mean, seriously, what chance does a guy have who only has to pass
Police physicals have against an guy like that? It would have been just too much for 'em to send a couple of plain clothes guys up to serve the
warrant on him, then bring in the search brigade from around the corner! Shoot, he might've killed 'em all with his bare hands if they hadn't dropped
him like a pole axed steer first!

Seriously. A couple of plain clothes guys to serve the warrant with a knock on the door like civilized folk. How many people do you know that go to
answer the door with a locked and loaded weapon when a delivery guy or whatever is there, and they can plainly see that?

I dunno. maybe it's just a lot more fun to kick doors in and shoot up old guys.

It's not about fearing everyone.

Sure it is. How else to explain a bunch of armed young guys kicking a door in and shooting an old guy when there are far better options available that
would have allowed everyone to live? They obviously had an abject fear of that wiley old dangerous coot.

It's about a certain subset of crimes that are extraordinarily dangerous to deal with. They must knock and announce if they suspect you of committing
a burglary (I'm differentiating from a robbery). However, that is not the case for drug situations, where the people can flush drugs down the drain,
and usually are heavily armed.
In that case, it is better that the officers get a jump on the criminals so as to avoid situations where there is a gun fight.

Okay, I'm tired of arguing the same points, so I'll just agree with you. You're right, it's better to just go ahead and shoot the old folks, THEN
rifle through their stuff. if you just go ahead and shoot them first, you don't have to worry about watching them.

Even in the case at hand, this guy was heavily armed and ready to attack the police.

How armed is "heavily armed"? I'm ready to attack anyone who attacks me, too. In an instant. I'm not a drug dealer, either.

And common sense will tell us that he wasn't defending this right that you claim he was. He was clearly engaged in illegal activity. I understand they
found nothing, but it doesn't mean there was nothing.

OK, now that's just plain scary. How do you know that he was "clearly engaging in illegal activity" when no evidence for that was found? Can we just
go around kicking in everyone's doors and shooting them on assumption and accusation, then? Where does "common sense" enter that equation?

Listen,it's been a ball sparring with you on this, but these mega-posts are getting out of hand. If I respond any more, I'm going to try to limit
myself to just one or two points out of a post, since there's a whole lot of running around in circles going on here. Good exercise, but a bear to
read and type.

Again, would Saturday be good for you? I really NEED that door frame splintering practice! I mean, it's not violent or anything - I'm a peace-loving
guy!

In response to Ryanp5555: You kick in someone's door in this state and enter with a firearm in hand you'll do somewhere between 5 and 20, assuming
you survive the breaking and entering. Kill one of the ocupants and heaven help you.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.